Why supply the actual game content instead of just the port?
PC Version of The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening DX · By
So was AM2R (Another Metroid 2 Remake) and Nintendo took that down. In fact, this uses Nintendo's art and music assets unlike that project. This is maybe the reason that the first we heard of this project is version 1.0 - it means that there will always be a completed version somewhere mirrored online.
AM2R was taken down specifically cause it was coming within a short window of Nintendo's own official Metroid 2 remake. It was in the same space as an official product, meaning actual concerns about "why buy the official one when the remake exists" were a thing.
You could argue this does a similar thing to what the Switch remake did, but that was years ago. This won't inhabit the same space as that.
also pretty sure the last thing the dev wants to hear after releasing this is potential legal ramifications cause knowing fan game devs and being a bit of one myself it's something we're well aware of. How about discussing the game itself instead of externalizing those concerns by talking about how legal issues are TOTALLY guaranteed?
Uhh... I wasn't the one who brought up the topic in the first place, I just replied to it. Complain to someone else not me. There are others in the conversation who are much more certain it will be taken down than me.
I also didn't say they are totally guaranteed. This might be fine. If there was retaliation from Nintendo I also wouldn't expect anything besides a takedown notice being issued to itch.io - especially as the creator isn't trying to profit from it.
This is an amazing fan project and I hope it survives long into the future!
Which means it's not just a typical copyright situation. This isn't a copyright infringement, it's a trademark violation, and unlike with copyright, companies HAVE to protect trademark. Copyright infringement can have discretion and there's no downside to letting a fan project be, but with trademark violations, the company HAS to take action, or else their IP can be lost entirely. Legally speaking, something like this poses a direct threat to the IP holder in a way AM2R didn't.
It only becomes a problem if a product actually gets popular enough to reasonably cause brand confusion to the point of being genericized. Some fan remake of a nearly 30-year-old game will not cause confusion with the actual original Link's Awakening game for the Game Boy. Yes, a company should be somewhat proactive about defending their own trademark to prevent it from being deemed genericized, but not every little case of a fan work has to be fought against even though yes, you could. It's pants-on-the-head stupid and not even Nintendo does that as Moon Channel himself emphasizes. Yet your average follower of him forgets this nuance and it's why a channel like him can be so dangerous: because he's a lawyer, people partially and uncritically accepts everything he says without being able to finish the rest of the mental work and it's also on him for not using his own position as a lawyer to try and criticize this.
Incorrect. The dude straight up said " This isn't a copyright infringement", which it most certainly is.
Not only are the assets here copyrighted material, but the software also serves as a replacement to the original piece.
If you either scanned the pages of a book or went the effort to retype the book without the rights to copy it, you are violating the copyright. This isn't just trademark infringement.
Do I completely agree with the current absurdity of these laws?
The answer to this would be the same to the following question:
Do I make the laws?